If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You will have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: OOTS #860 - The Discussion Thread

Originally Posted by Jay R

I have stated that both your game desires and mine can be good game design. You have stated that what matters to me is atrocious game design.

Let's be fair — you were the one who started the game design prescriptivism, when you said ranges for real weapons should be looked up, not made up. That's a flat statement about how games should be designed, and it's not really compatible with a "different strokes for different folks" attitude.

You also said, "If somebody wrote a game in which swords were used to wash dishes, longbows were used to clean floors, and dishcloths were weapons with 500 foot range, most people would consider that bad design, and would have less fun trying to understand the absurd rules," which sounds a lot like a reductio ad absurdum "lack of realism leads to bad game design" argument.

Originally Posted by Jay R

I still believe that your goals should matter, and I will never state that designers designing games to please you is "atrocious game design."

The two quotes above make it sound a lot like you were calling games without an emphasis on realism bad, if not atrocious. If you actually intended to say that some people enjoy realism in games and some don't, and there's room in the market for both to play the kinds of games they like, I don't think anyone would argue.

Re: Did Nale hear Sabine say she loves him forever?

Originally Posted by Umberhulk

As one of the three permanent members of the Linear Guild, Sabine is an important villain, so I don't think its close enough to the end of the strip to kill her off. I think this will result in a sit-down with her higher ups, or Quarr's.

Sabine will probably last the longest out of the Linear Guild but I think this arc represents the Fall of the Linear Guild.

Re: Did Nale hear Sabine say she loves him forever?

"I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRainCrystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

Re: OOTS #860 - The Discussion Thread

Originally Posted by Envyus

Most people don't know this but if Nale died it would be near impossble for Sabine to see him. Nale being lawful evil would go to hell home of Devils. Sabine is a Demon and with Lee as exception Devils hate Demons and would kill any that come near hell. Nale's soul would also be converted into a Lemure after a while destroying everything that made him well him.

The only ways Nale would be able to see her is

a. the IFCC gets the fiends to work togeather but thats not going to happen for a while.

b. Lee manages to buy Nale's soul. However he likely would not care enough to do so plus Nale could be converted before he has a chance.

Reposting this so you guys know. While Rich's world is homebrew the Lower planes have been the same so far so there is a good chance this applies to this world.

Or that Belkar has one level in a secret third class. Ranger 14/Barb 1/??? 1

Given his stats, his options are limited. If he took 2 levels of Fighter, he'd get weapon specialization: slashing, and he certainly does a lot of slashing according to the sound effects. So maybe Ranger 13/Fighter 2/Barb 1.

That way, he was suffering from the XP penalty prior to taking the barbarian level, and has been in sync with the others since then.

I also wouldn't write off the possibility of a backstory involving a humiliating level spent failing out of mage school, resulting in a massive chip on his shoulder.

Re: OOTS #860 - The Discussion Thread

Originally Posted by Jay R

First, you are assuming that the numbers as they fall are broken, which is not the case, as long as there are people enjoying D&D. I was defending the rules as they are, against somebody who wanted to change them.

Ah, but again you are requiring my position to care about historical accuracy when I have blatently stated that I don't. My only concern is: Is the game balanced and fun.

As I posted, if the rules are historically accurate AND the rules are balanced and fun, then that is terrific. I continue to not care at all about historical accuracy, and am certainly not arguing against it. However, games are meant to be fun... that is sort of their definition. In a class based system like D&D, that fun requires that the different classes be viable. No one will have fun within a system which presents false choice (this is actually one of the most pervasive problems with D&D 3.5, in that build optimization does actually detract from the fun of the game unless the DM intervenes.)

So when I see someone question whether a rule is creating a game-breaking balance situation and the response is to ignore the question of balance in favor of historical accuracy, then I call that a poor design decision. Ignoring balance is going to negatively impact enjoyment, and when enjoyment becomes less important than historical accuracy, you have officially stopped making a game and have moved into the terrain of simulation.

You seem to derive a great deal of pleasure from D&D re-inacting battle with proper values and that's great. I would rather weapons in D&D resemble their actual selves, but I don't want the realism of the game to destroy the game itself.

That said, you do seem awfully invested in precieving what I write as a personal attack against you and your ideals, and I'm not really sure why. The root of our disagreement really doesn't seem to be that I demand crazy, implausible rules and you want realism, because I also want realism. J.R.R. Tolkein once said the most important element in fantasy writing was realism. However, when defending the system from someone wanting to houserule down the effective ranges of things, the correct response is to demonstrate why those ranges aren't actuially an issue, rather than simply stating that those are historically accurate ranges. When you do the latter, it sends the message that the game must be historically accurate regardless of what effects this will have on game balance, which is of course what I disagreed with!

Hopefully this clears things up... probably not... but at the very least hopefully you quit trying to force me to take positions which I have no interest in taking :)

Re: OOTS #860 - The Discussion Thread

Or that Belkar has one level in a secret third class. Ranger 14/Barb 1/??? 1

Given his stats, his options are limited. If he took 2 levels of Fighter, he'd get weapon specialization: slashing, and he certainly does a lot of slashing according to the sound effects. So maybe Ranger 13/Fighter 2/Barb 1.

That way, he was suffering from the XP penalty prior to taking the barbarian level, and has been in sync with the others since then.

That way, he was suffering from the 20% XP penalty prior to taking the barbarian level, and has had a 40% XP penalty since then. What are you thinking the rules are that adding a level of a third class would make the penalty go away rather than doubling it?

(Also, weapon specialization: slashing? Weapon Specialization: Greatsword, which is what Roy has, requires four levels of fighter. There is no such thing as "weapon specialization: slashing." Smolder, you have very definite ideas about D&D that seem to be completely related to a different gaming system entirely.)

Last edited by Kish; 2012-09-18 at 08:42 AM.

Spoiler

Show

"The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan

Re: OOTS #860 - The Discussion Thread

Originally Posted by Lord Tyger

Belkar exploits the roleplaying XP rules by hamming it up on occasion, which apparently grants bonus XP.

Only for the purposes of a joke. We certainly haven't seen Belkar do this habitually, which is required for your argument to be valid, particularly "Belkar gets 20% more experience than anyone else and thus makes up for his penalty" valid :P

Re: OOTS #860 - The Discussion Thread

It is strange how I feel about fictional characters.

Nale is an evil mass murderer. But it was sad in how Sabine was separated from him. And the failure that is approaching is quite sad also. Being bad in something that you wanted to excel is pretty harsh to anyone.

In other topic. Nale seems more like neutral evil to me, and Elan more like neutral good.

Re: OOTS #860 - The Discussion Thread

Can we stop with the historical accuracy argument? Any game which simultaneously uses all armor and all hand-powered weapons from every culture from every period in history is not, by definition, historically accurate. Armor is not designed to resist all weapons, just the weapons it's likely to face. Weapons are likewise designed to beat the armor of the period. Some tactics and some weapons (stirrups, crossbows) made others obsolete. Some never faced each other in combat because they were never designed to.

Can we also stop with the realism arguments? Falling damage would be impossibly difficult to calculate if you had to first work out ½ x mass x velocity^2, where velocity = square root of (2 x gravity x height), adjusted for airflow and wind resistance. A realistic description of combat would impart more swinging damage the farther the point of impact is from the fulcrum. That would be so yawn-inducingly realistic that nobody would get past the realistic character creation (like the 40,000 dice rolls to decide what genetic alleles you're born with).

The Giant says: Yes, I am aware TV Tropes exists as a website. ... No, I have never decided to do something in the comic because it was listed on TV Tropes. I don't use it as a checklist for ideas ... and I have never intentionally referenced it in any way.

Re: OOTS #860 - The Discussion Thread

Originally Posted by Fish

Can we stop with the historical accuracy argument? Any game which simultaneously uses all armor and all hand-powered weapons from every culture from every period in history is not, by definition, historically accurate. Armor is not designed to resist all weapons, just the weapons it's likely to face. Weapons are likewise designed to beat the armor of the period. Some tactics and some weapons (stirrups, crossbows) made others obsolete. Some never faced each other in combat because they were never designed to.

Can we also stop with the realism arguments? Falling damage would be impossibly difficult to calculate if you had to first work out ½ x mass x velocity^2, where velocity = square root of (2 x gravity x height), adjusted for airflow and wind resistance. A realistic description of combat would impart more swinging damage the farther the point of impact is from the fulcrum. That would be so yawn-inducingly realistic that nobody would get past the realistic character creation (like the 40,000 dice rolls to decide what genetic alleles you're born with).

Yeah that is good point. Not to mention magic which violates the laws of physics utterly.

Re: OOTS #860 - The Discussion Thread

Yeah. A world where Gods can influence directly and wizards can tell physics to sit down and shut up is not always going to be realistic. Though Tolkien did say that the more fantastic the "unrealistic" elements the more grounded the realistic elements need to be.

But DnD is a game. Fun is the purpose. As such some things are fudged away from reality to make it more enjoyable. Realistically every time you got hit in DnD you should suffer status effects ranging from blood loss dizziness to lowered mobility. But that makes it unwieldy and less easy to play, so it gets fidged in a HP mechanic. Such is life.

Realistically a dagger to the throat is instant death. In DnD it ends up being maybe 6 damage. Burning damage should mean rolling will to resist pain from every action. It becomes a bit of damage each turn and that is it.

Re: OOTS #860 - The Discussion Thread

Now Roy is Neutral Good. The Deva even said so he only gets kicked into Lawful Good because he tries to be Lawful Good. If he did not have a preference then he would be Neutral Good.

That isn't what she said.

She said Roy was Lawful Good because he strove and acted Lawful Good and was continously striving to better himself and achieve his Lawful Good aims. It was most certainly not just because he wanted to be.

Re: OOTS #860 - The Discussion Thread

Nice catch, I hadn't noticed.

Spoiler

Show

"The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan

Re: OOTS #860 - The Discussion Thread

Has anyone noticed that despite T knowing about and explaining how Holy Word (a spell that only harms the non-good) works, he still managed to do it without referencing the alignment system that he seems to disdain.